Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projects, OCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010. R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3   1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton

1. Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projectsOCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010 R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3 1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton

2. Overview Aim To consider the model of support used in the UKOER programme, the value it adds, and consider how it might be used elsewhere Outline Introductions UKOER Programme One model of support Assessing the model

3. UKOER Programme The Open Educational Resources Programme is a collaboration between the JISC and the Higher Education Academy in the UK. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has provided an initial £5.7 million of funding, (April 2009 to March 2010) which will explore how to expand the open availability and use of free, high quality online educational resources. The programme will support universities and colleges in exploring processes and policies, intellectual property rights, cultural issues, technical requirements and data management issues associated with the release of existing resources as OERs.

4. UKOER Programme The UK OER programme consists of 29 pilot projects divided into three categories: individual (i.e. personal) projects (8); institutional projects (7) multi-institutional subject-based consortium projects (14). Support for the programme is being provided by a number of existing JISC services and the Open University (UK) Score project.

5. JISC CETIS JISC CETIS is one of three JISC Innovation Support Centres (ISC). We provide advice to the UK Higher and Post-16 Education sectors on the development and use of educational technology and standards. through: participating in standards bodies, providing community forums for sharing experiences in using particular technologies and standards through providing specific support for JISC funded development programmes such as the UKOER programme.

6. UKOER opportunities and support challenges No mandated descriptive standards or exchange mechanisms and projects were free to choose the delivery platforms, tools or technologies that best suited them A basic set of descriptive requirements was mandated (Campbell 2009), and the use of syndication formats encouraged.

7. UKOER opportunities and support challenges All OERs also to be represented in Jorum, the UK national repository of teaching and learning materials. The programme also provided a catalyst for the launch of the new JorumOpen service. Previously use of the Jorum repository had required subscription and license agreements. A programme support for legal, technical and community issues was provided by a number of existing JISC services and the OU (UK) Score project.

8. UKOER opportunities and support challenges This approach aimed to give projects the greatest flexibility to create and disseminate OERs. It also provided an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of a wide variety of approaches and, in the longer term, their sustainability.

9. Principles of CETIS programme support Support for UKOER uses models of support we provide to other JISC development programmes. Treat the programme as a whole Engage with individual projects but use specific issues to also produce general advice Create a high level overview of the technical approaches, technologies and standards in use within and across funded programmes. Synthesise, reflect, and make recommendations.

10. Support functions steer (the programme development) gather (information from projects) enable (projects to achieve their goals) inform (projects) review and collate (information about the projects' technical choices) connect (projects to each other and other initiatives) represent (the programme to other initiatives) disseminate (information about the programme) synthesise and critique (the findings from the projects).

11. A sketch of the past 18 months Programme scoping, contributing to bid marking Programme meetings Technical review calls Online seminars Blogging Synthesis

12. Programme Development Tools used: teleconferencing, email, CETIS blogs, presentations Support functions: Steer, Inform CETIS provided advice to JISC on the possible approaches to managing and releasing OERs that the programme could take. This work then informed the wider community about the technical and resource description requirements of the programme. For example, Campbell (Technical, 2009). This scoping work culminated in a presentation at the programme briefing day and related blog posts. For example, Campbell (Metadata, 2009).

13. Communicating with projects Tools used: Twitter, email, project blogs, newsreaders, Yahoo Pipes, meetings, online conferencing tools. Support functions: Gather, Inform, Enable Meetings Email lists for each strand (individual, institutional, and subject-based consortium). Later in the programme a master list was also set up but tends to be administrative Twitter The programme also encouraged the use of Twitter (through specifying a tag #ukoer).

14. Communicating with projects (2) Blogs Project blogs were adopted by some projects providing news and discussing issues Feed Readers Allowed monitoring of blogs without visiting them. For example The JISC programme manager for the institutional strand set up http://www.netvibes.com/hwilliamson#oer Custom Feeds Using Yahoo Pipes, created a number of custom feeds to filter the combined feeds from the project blogs for particular keywords (such as metadata).

15. Technical Review Calls Tools used: Teleconferencing, Skype, Email, PROD (online database) Support functions: Review, Enable, Inform, Collate, Connect Prior to the call, information from the project plan was used to create a draft entry in CETIS’ online database for project technical information. Conversations using a teleconference service. (the audio quality of Skype if multi-site). when used Skype‘s chat window helped share links. Do you know about? We pointed out other relevant work and possible connections. For example, making sure that those producing RSS feeds knew about some of the aggregator services for their feeds.

16. Technical Review Calls (2) http://PROD.cetis.ac.uk

17. Technical Review Calls (3) http://PROD.cetis.ac.uk

18. Following up issues Tools used: email, teleconferencing, CETIS blogs Support functions: Enable, Review When challenges or problems emerging from calls, meetings, blog posts, interim reports or referral Investigate issues and discuss Listen to projects and advise (not tell  in keeping with programme approach) Typical issues included: commenting on application profiles, advising about granularity, detailed technical support issues -> making connections

19. Ongoing Advice Tools used: online conferencing, CETIS blogs, CETIS conference. Support functions: Inform, Enable, Connect, Gather. CETIS ran two of the monthly online meetings (one on metadata and resource description the other on resource tracking). using the Elluminate online conferencing tool. These meetings consisted of a presentation, gathering feedback on issues raised through synchronous polls, and text and voice conferencing. CETIS continued to provide advice through blogging about these emerging issues. A workshop at the CETIS 2009 conference to gather key issues : Twitter backchannel for the workshop session the questions emerging were recorded and blogged unedited immediately subsequent synthesis

20. Representing and promoting Tools used: PROD Support functions: Represent, Disseminate By analysing technical review conversations and ongoing engagement with projects CETIS has been able to gather a comprehensive overview of the technical choices made across the programme. This has enabled CETIS to present an overview of the technical approaches to other interested communities (Robertson, MIT, 2009) and to represent technical issues emerging across the programme to funders such as JISC and to other support services such as JorumOpen.

21. Synthesis Tools used: PROD, CETIS blogs, presentations, CETIS wiki. Support functions: Disseminate, Synthesis, Critique. As the programme draws to an end CETIS are analysing information stored in PROD and the blogs about the use of particular standards and technologies in the programme. Information gathered on the CETIS wiki and blogged producing a series of more reflective blog posts official documentation including a final project report that will include recommendations for similar programmes in the future.

22. Initial Reflections and Added Value As outlined earlier the UKOER programme allowed projects a great deal of flexibility in choosing their technical infrastructure and approaches to resource description. This will be discussed in more detail tomorrow, but: There has been a great deal of diversity in the strategies adopted by projects. All the projects have developed technical approaches to allow them to manage and distribute their materials successfully. The effectiveness of the support provided and evaluating how the model might be used elsewhere is of course a different question. CETIS have received positive feedback throughout the programme Useful to consider the specific functions outlined and consider what could or could not be done without a dedicated programme support.

23. Steer Provide advice on scoping the programme and the technical approach taken. it appears that the planned approach has worked Without a dedicated project, expertise could be called in as required (but with associated cost). The support project allows the expertise that shaped the call to continue to be involved.

24. Gather The widespread use of Twitter and blogs throughout the programme has created an interactive environment for spontaneous discussion and dissemination. However, : much of the conversation on Twitter is, to a degree, transitory – in a way that email is not. Those not actively engaging with Twitter or email may be left out of the loop and feel disengaged Without a dedicated project, similar tools could help projects be aware of each other’s work. However, technical conversations are more likely to be shared publicly if there is someone actively “listening”. The support project adds active and informed engagement with channels of communication.

25. Enable Considering the provision of: technical questions from interim reports followed up two online and one face to face conference sessions conference sessions and briefing days amplified (through twitter coverage and blog commentary) blog posts Without a support project: expert consultants could be used for specific events, (associated cost implications) Projects could, and do, amplify events and write and blog about their work and wider issues. (dedicated support model may provide more objective commentary)

26. Inform The support provided: inform projects about relevant services, applications and technical developments. (The challenge is knowing what is relevant and worth disseminating). Share innovative practices emerging from within the programme (around Search Engine Optimization and the APIs for particular Web2.0 applications) across the programme and beyond. Without a support project this could be addressed through active community engagement from the projects within the programme using with suitable channels (some overhead for projects) projects developing an awareness of what was happening outside the programme (greater overhead for projects) However, there would be an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio and the support project adds dedicated resource and staff who are aware of “the bigger picture”

27. Review and Collate The support provided was: Technical review conversations held with all the projects. Searchable overview of technical issues created. Further email exchanges and calls about particular issues. Blog posts connected to the programme. Issues: administrative overhead of coordinating the technical calls chronological spread of the technical review calls Without a support project: It would difficult without central co-ordination, dedicated time, and a system such as PROD. A technical peer review process could be used, but high degree of coordination and commitment would be required.

28. Connect The support provided was to link up projects using similar technological choices. Issues time lag between technical review calls. Without a support project: In the context of very active community engagement from the projects some serendipitous connections are likely to have happened. (A support project removes some of the luck and provides a centralised overview).

29. Represent, Disseminate The support provided: Support JISC in liaising with service providers in the OER field Promote activities and concerns of the UKOER projects Present at conferences, publish and blog posts. Without a support project Some of the above would have happened but it is unlikely that any individual project would have had a similar influence or overview. Programme-wide synthesis and dissemination would have occurred to some degree but with less of a technical view The support project adds an objective programme level overview and a recognised point of contact with a program wide remit.

30. Synthesise and Critique The support provided Creation of web based resources, guidance and PROD entries. (alongside separate general synthesis and evaluation project) Without a support project Consultants commissioned to provide a general programme level synthesis could also have been resourced to create a technical one. A support project adds continuity throughout the programme lifecycle and specialist technical support for the general synthesis and evaluation project.

31. Issues: Cost Utilizing existing services and projects the costs involved in running support services are mostly staff related (as the infrastructure used was either free or already in place). However, the service is provided at a cost equivalent to that of another project releasing OERs. We suggest that: The value added by a dedicated support project provides a number of valuable outputs and outcomes for the programme to balance forgoing one extra development project. Central support is likely to be more cost effective than individual projects seeking (and often paying) for similar advice and guidance.

32. Issues: Challenge of Openness Open isn’t easy The programme has wrestled with the process of the changes in understanding that go with using open licences. Some projects engaged with the challenges around working openly. Blogs to publicly think through some of their project issues not just to disseminate news. Both uses are valuable, but from the point of view of providing support the former is priceless. Private space is needed to discuss issues and the programme has used closed email lists. However, it is surprising no public list for the discussion of issues around Open Education has been adopted or created by the programme.

33. Ongoing Questions Concerning our support role and the technical aspects of creating and sharing OERs: Has the programme enabled a change of culture and practice to allow the facilitated release of OERs by UK HE institutions without seed funding? Is more centrally provided funding needed? If so, what are the key areas for development? How can we ensure that the lessons and experiences of this programme are effectively shared with the wider OER community? Is it possible to maintain and grow the sense of community fostered through the programme beyond the funding period without some kind of dedicated co-ordination?

34. Further Information http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Educational_Content_OER http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk//topic/oer Contact details robert.robertson@strath.ac.uk s.macneill@strath.ac.uk lmc@strath.ac.uk L.Yuan@bolton.ac.uk philb@icbl.hw.ac.uk